Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review
Submission Date: 14 November 2025
The Law Council of Australia provided a submission to comment on proposed reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA), as outlined in the Department’s Issues Paper published on 1 August 2025.1
Apart from input from the bodies acknowledged in the submission, this submission draws on previous relevant Law Council submissions, including particularly our 2019 submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on Priorities for Federal Discrimination Law Reform (2019 Submission).2
The submission does not provide answers to all 51 Consultation Questions in the Issues Paper.
In terms of guiding principles, the Law Council is of the view that discrimination law reform should make the law clear, consistent, comprehensive, intersectional, remedial, accessible and preventive. These principles have informed several submissions the Law Council has made to Commonwealth anti-discrimination law reform consultations for more than a decade now.3
Reform to the DDA is welcome, particularly with a view to modernising the legislation to meet the evolving needs of stakeholders and protect human rights. Despite noteworthy revisions in 2009,4 most of the DDA is now more than three decades old, predating major developments such as the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)5 in 2006, and the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2013. As noted in the Issues Paper, community understanding and expectations have also shifted significantly.6
A major driver of the proposed reforms was the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission or DRC), which handed down its final report in September 2023.7 The DRC made clear that Australian law has not adequately protected the rights of many people with disability. In relation to the DDA, concepts such as reasonable accommodation/adjustment and unjustifiable hardship, along with evidentiary burdens on those attempting to assert their rights, have allowed barriers to participation in society to remain in place, despite the original intentions behind the legislation.8
As a starting point for consideration of the recommendations in this submission, changes to the DDA as a result of this consultation should:
- not result in any diminution of protection in practice;
- prioritise the voices of those with relevant lived experience;
- be drafted with a view to implementing Australia’s relevant international obligations, in particular under the CRPD, and
- not arbitrarily increase the existing regulatory burden on business (especially small business), including through the cumulative effect of the multiple reforms proposed in the Issues Paper.
In addition, harmonising the DDA and state/territory anti-discrimination regimes, where possible, is desirable. At present, feedback from practitioners around the country suggests that use of the DDA (along with other federal anti-discrimination legislation) can often be a less attractive path to redress for clients than state/territory legislation or the Fair Work regime (for reasons such as accessibility, clarity and cost). We acknowledge that a modern, streamlined, consolidated Anti-Discrimination Act at the Commonwealth level is not proposed at this time.9 However, this should not prevent individual Acts such as the DDA from being updated in line with the principles set out at paragraph 4 above.
Some of the DRC’s recommendations represent significant shifts in regulation and responsibility (for example, the positive duties in relation to elimination of discrimination and adjustments). Accordingly, as was the case regarding the recent SDA reforms, adequate additional funding must be allocated to relevant bodies such as the AHRC if the reforms are to be implemented successfully. The impact on civil legal need must also be factored in and funded so that people can uphold their rights in practice, including before the courts.
Finally, in accordance with feedback received to date and the Law Council’s policy on a Federal Human Rights Charter,10 DDA reform should be seen as part of a broader project to implement a comprehensive national human rights framework.11 Some of the reform proposals in the Issues Paper use language derived from human rights law and jurisprudence. Although this language is common in other jurisdictions, it would be best supported (including in the interests of clarity and consistency of terminology) if accompanied by a federal Human Rights Act.12 Such an Act should be adopted as the keystone of a comprehensive and cohesive Australian human rights framework.
Please note that many of the responses in the submission are subject to consideration of the exact wording to be used in any amendments to the DDA resulting from this review. The Law Council would be pleased to consider draft amendments once they are available. The Law Council strongly encourages the public release of an exposure draft of the legislation for consultation.
1 AGD, Review of the Disability Discrimination Act (Consultation Resources, August-October 2025).
2 Law Council, Response to Discussion Paper: Priorities for federal discrimination law reform (Submission, 20 December 2019) (2019 Submission).
3 Ibid, [12].
4 Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2009 (Cth)
5 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 13 December 2006, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 30 March 2008).
6 Issues Paper, 4.
7 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report.
8 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), s3. See further Disability Discrimination Bill 1992, Explanatory Memorandum.
9 Law Council, Policy Statement – Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Laws (2011).
10 Law Council, Federal Human Rights Charter Policy Position (November 2020).
11 The Law Council’s most recent recommendations in this regard are set out in our 2023 submission to the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into Australia’s Human Rights Framework.
12 Similar considerations apply to reforms needed in light of other Royal Commissions, including the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. See further discussion under Question 8.
Last Updated on 28/11/2025
Share
Tags
Most recent items
Trending Items
Law Council
National Public Register of Child Sex Offenders
Law Council
Bullying and harassment in the workplace
Law Council